The insured's home was extensively damaged by wind and rain resulting from Hurricane Katrina. See Belonga v. Auto Club Family Ins. Co., No. 09-476, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118643 (E.D. La. Dec. 21, 2009). When purchased in 2003, the home was appraised at $114,000. An adjuster addressing the insured's flood claim reported, however, the home had a cash value of $190,000.
The insured held a homeowner's policy issued by Auto Club. She filed suit seeking payment of her full policy limit for damage to dwelling, plus other structures and contents. She had received only $25,870 for wind damage to her residence and $2,932 for wind damage to other structures. Pursuant to a flood policy, the insured also received $94,000 for flood damage to her dwelling. Therefore, the insured had received a total of $119,870 for damage to her home caused by flood, wind, and wind driven rain.
Due to contested issues of fact, Auto Club's motion for summary judgment was denied. The insured was entitled to recover any previously uncompensated losses that were covered by her homeowner's policy and which, when combined with her flood proceeds, did not exceed the value of her property. The value of the insured's property was a material fact. The insured had submitted a report indicating the cash value of her home was $190,000, an amount exceeding the total amount of insurance proceeds she had received.
Further, although the insured had testified in her deposition that she was not pursuing damages for other structures, her expert's report stated there had been hurricane-related damage to the insured's other structures. The court discounted the deposition testimony, which likely resulted from her lack of understanding of her policy and not from an intent to abandon her claim for damage to other structures.
